Interest, passion, (non)recognition, and wars: a conceptual essay

International Critical Thought

Абази²

2021

In this article, we adopt a socio-anthropological approach to understand how hegemonic international representations are constructed in the politics and theory of international relations, specifically how Southeast Europe is perceived in West European imagination. We focus on various forms of travel writing, media reporting, diplomatic record, policy making, truth claims and expert accounts related to different narrative perspectives on the Balkan wars, both old (1912-1913) and new (1991-1999). We show how these perspectives are rooted in different temporalities and historicizations, and how they contribute to international representations that affect international politics, particularly in relation to perpetuating othering and containment of Southeast Europe. We demonstrate through a detailed analysis and problematization how these international representations are culturally and politically constructed. They do not neutrally refer to a reality in the world; they create a reality of their own. As such, how international representations are constructed is itself a form of power and hegemony in both the practice and the theory of international relations.

Section: International Securitizing Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Mytho-Logics of Othering and Containment: Culture, Politics and Theory in International Relations

International Critical Thought

Абази²

2021

“…Western Europe is increasingly under the pressure of competing global powers, but if it misrepresents Southeast Europe, this would be detrimental to Europe as a whole. If Southeast Europe is not recognized in full representational and political terms as an integral part of Europe, this may alienate the whole region, individual countries at the state level or certain members of the population at an individual level, and engage them in other potential conflicts (Lindemann 2010(Lindemann , 2014, or push them to look further to the East, perhaps not to the old Eastern Communism, but to the new Eastern power of Russian Pan-Slavism, or even to Neo-Ottomanism and fundamental Islamism. A new propaganda machine is working industriously to elaborate new international representations in that direction, and this machine already includes a certain activism and scholarship that aim at "Reinstating the Ottomans" anew in Southeast Europe as elsewhere in the Middle East (Blumi 2011).…”

Section: Securitization and Containmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

International representations of Balkan wars: a socio-anthropological approach in international relations perspective

Абази

Cambridge Review of International Affairs

2016

This article introduces the socio-anthropological concept of international representations to examine the relationship between a civilizational rhetoric, the West European and the international politics of otherization and containment of Southeast Europe, and an essentialist and timeless bias in international relations theory, including both radical and constructivist trends. We first explore the different narrative perspectives on the Balkan wars from the beginning to the end of the twentieth century. Their subsequent problematization is aimed at challenging the way they have constructed commonplace and time-worn representations, which international society shares with different consequences in international affairs. This is a limited conception since international representations as a socio-anthropological concept are always socially, culturally and politically constructed, contested and negotiated. They do not neutrally refer to a reality in the world; they create a reality of their own. Moreover, this limited conception ignores the fact that how, by whom and in whose interest international representations are constructed is itself a form of power in international relations. Therefore, the way international representations are constructed can be problematized as an example of political and ideological projects that operate in the West as well as in the Southeast European countries that are the object of Western foreign policy.

“…They serve a purpose and given interests of control and domination, especially for redefining their geopolitical existence in the hierarchy of relations within the Western order of things in international affairs. In turn, the politics of non-recognition of Southeast Europe as an integral part of Europe may have hazardous implications of alienation and engagement in other potential conflicts (Lindemann, 2010(Lindemann, , 2014.…”

Section: Against Anachronismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time and narrative: Temporality, memory, and instant history of Balkan wars

Абази¹,

2016

Time & Society

International audienceIn this article, we explore the ways in which from the beginning to the end of twentieth century different temporalities and historicizations stemming from different narrative perspectives on the Balkan wars have constructed different commonplace, timeworn and enduring representations. In practical terms, we take issue with several patterns of narratives, such as the sensationalism of media industry, the essentialization of collective memory, the securitization of imaginary threats and the pacifist activism of normative transformations. It is our contention to argue that they historicize certain moments of rupture, which are subsequently used and misused to construct an anachronistic representation of Southeast Europe that may conceal hidden interests. Contrastingly, an alternative narrative that emphasizes a “history from below” as an apperception of the temporality of being can offer a revisionist approach that may show the futility of ahistorical accounts